Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Charlie Weis Fired

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    Charlie Weis Fired

    It's offical.

    http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/news/story?id=4700891
    ESPN.com newservice

    SOUTH BEND, Ind. -- Notre Dame athletic director Jack Swarbrick says the decision to fire football coach Charlie Weis was harder than observers might have thought.

    Swarbrick recommended to university president the Rev. John Jenkins on Sunday night that Weis be let go with six years left on his contract. Weis finishes with a 35-27 record in five seasons, among the worst of any Fighting Irish coach.

    During a news conference on campus Monday, Swarbrick said everyone who worked with Weis liked him. But he said it's critical that Notre Dame competes at the highest level and plays for national championships.

    Following a 6-2 start this season, the Irish lost their final four games and wound up at 6-6.

    Assistant head coach Rob Ianello, who is also Notre Dame's recruiting coordinator, will assume responsibility for football operations until a new coach is hired, Swarbrick said. Ianello has spent the past five seasons on Notre Dame's staff.


    Forde: Command Decision

    Charlie Weis is the latest and most costly in a series of Notre Dame coaching mistakes, but there's nothing wrong with the Irish that a good hire can't fix. Story

    Notre Dame players scheduled a midafternoon players meeting that was to include a vote on whether they want to play in a bowl game after a 6-6 season. Swarbrick has said he will consider the players' wishes in deciding on a bowl trip.

    Following a 6-2 start this season, the losing streak began with the second upset by Navy in three years. Then came losses to Pittsburgh and Connecticut -- in double overtime -- and in the season finale to Stanford, and it seemed inevitable Weis would be gone.

    Speculation about possible replacements for Weis has been rampant for weeks. Among the top names, Florida's Urban Meyer and Oklahoma's Bob Stoops have already said they plan to stay where they are.

    Speaking on a conference call Monday, Stoops said: "I'm going to be at Oklahoma next year, so I can't be at two places at once."

    Cincinnati's Brian Kelly has also been mentioned, along with Stanford's Jim Harbaugh and TCU's Gary Patterson.

    Weis, meanwhile, has told people in South Bend that he's already heard from roughly six NFL teams about becoming their offensive coordinator next season, sources told ESPN NFL Insider Adam Schefter.

    A brash offensive coordinator with the New England Patriots when he was hired, Weis raised Irish expectations with back-to-back appearances in BCS bowl games in his first two seasons.

    Since then, though, one of the nation's most storied football programs has gone 16-21 -- the most losses ever by the Irish in a three-year span.

    Weis' record is worse than his two predecessors, Tyrone Willingham and Bob Davie, who were also fired. Notre Dame will be looking for its fifth coach this decade.

    Weis has six years left on a 10-year contract signed midway through his first season, just after a thriller against top-ranked USC that ended in a 34-31 loss.

    The way that game played out served as a model for the Weis era. Clinging to a 31-28 lead with less than two minutes to play, Notre Dame allowed the Trojans to convert on a fourth-and-9 from their own 26. That ultimately set up a quarterback sneak in the waning moments, when Reggie Bush pushed Matt Leinart into the end zone for the winning score.

    What made Weis' fall worse for fans of one of the nation's most storied football programs was that it began so promisingly.

    Weis came to Notre Dame brimming with confidence after serving as offensive coordinator for the three-time Super Bowl champion Patriots.

    The first two seasons under Weis produced more victories (19) than any other Notre Dame coach, including Knute Rockne, Frank Leahy and Ara Parseghian. Both seasons, though, ended with BCS bowl losses.

    Asked about his start at the time, Weis said: "I really haven't done anything yet."

    He didn't know he had reached the high point of his tenure.

    With Brady Quinn, Jeff Samardzija and other key players gone in 2007, the Irish started 0-5 for the first time in school history. They finished 3-9, leaving Weis one loss shy of matching Davie's school record of 16 losses in his first three seasons.

    Most shocking, though, was the fact the Irish finished last in the NCAA in total offense just three years after Weis said at his introductory news conference that when it comes to X's and O's "we have the greatest advantage."

    The past two seasons the Irish have collapsed in November. They got off to a 5-2 start before going 1-4 down the stretch a year ago. This time they ended the season with four tough losses.

    Notre Dame fans who celebrated Weis' cockiness when he was winning grew tired of his Jersey attitude when the Irish started losing, with many calling him arrogant.

    His biggest failure, however, was his team's inability to play good defense. The Irish never finished higher than 39th in the country in total defense and gave up big play after big play.

    Weis appeared to know his firing was imminent, saying a day after the loss to Connecticut on Nov. 21 that he would have a hard time arguing against his dismissal "because 6-5 is not good enough" -- an echo of his words when he took the job.

    Overall, Weis' teams lost six games by 26 points or more. That's the same number Willingham had in three seasons. Davie had only one such loss and Lou Holtz didn't have any. Weis had a pair of 38-0 losses to Michigan and USC that tie for the eighth-most lopsided losses in Notre Dame history.

    Whoever replaces Weis will be charged with ending the longest title drought in school history. Notre Dame has not topped the AP's final poll since the end of the 1988 season.
    It will be interesting to see who they get. I don't consider myself a die hard Notre Dame fan though.

    Bob Stoops name is being tossed around. He says he is staying yet I heard on Sportscenter tonight there is a deal in place minus a few details. I don't buy it though.

    John Gruden has been talked about. Another former NFL boss who would be an interesting choice is ex Raven's head coach Bill Billick. Talk about defense!

    If i'm Notre Dame there are two canidates I put at the top of my list are Stanford's Jim Harbaugh and Iowa's Kirk Fernetz. I think either of these guys would be excellent at Notre Dame.
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Charlie Weis Fired

    Brian Kelly is the most likely replacement for Weis at ND in my opinion.

    Charlie Weis will probably be the OC next year for the Chiefs.

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Charlie Weis Fired

      I was never a huge Weiss fan. He put his heart and soul into the job, I'll give him credit for that, and I really think he did the best he could, but he was not an affable guy to the press and this attitude might have also been seen by potential recruits.

      I am a Notre Dame fan but not a huge college football fan. Therefore I don't know very much about all the different candidates.

      That being said Jim Harbaugh would be an excellent choice. Again, not sure if he would be the best choice but he would be an excellent choice. From a short term PR perspective, he played many years for the Chicago Bears and although Notre Dame is in Indiana and has a lot of fans in Indiana most people consider it to be in the Chicago market (his time with the Colts doesn't hurt either). From a more practical perspective, he has already proven that he can recruit at an academically rigorous institution which is an enormous plus for Notre Dame.

      Getting Harbaugh would just make me an even bigger ND fan. I don't really think Notre Dame should try to experiment with an NFL guy again. Get someone from the college ranks.
      Last edited by idioteque; 11-30-2009, 06:58 PM.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Charlie Weis Fired

        Good the dude was not HC material. I want Gruden.

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Charlie Weis Fired

          With Harbaugh being a Michigan alum, there's a better chance that he would coach the University of Venus than Notre Dame.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Charlie Weis Fired

            A few thoughts:

            a) Weis needed to go, for sure.
            b) Gruden just signed an extension for MNF (which, granted, doesn't mean much), but has said that he wants to take another year off. Personally, I think he is an NFL guy too.
            c) I think it will be Brian Kelly.
            d) I'm not 100% sure that Harbaugh would leave Stanford to take the ND job. He may be waiting around to see if Rich Rod gets the axe next year at his alma mater.

            Comment

            • #7
              Re: Charlie Weis Fired

              DC,

              I am much like huge. Huge Notre Dame fan, do not follow college football as much.

              With that said, I liked Charlie Weis the person. I just did not care for him as a coach.

              Hopefully next time we wait before giving a 10 year contract......

              Comment

              • #8
                Re: Charlie Weis Fired

                I really like Kelly from Cincy a lot. He seems to be very personable and great for recruiting. It was a shame that it ended this way with Weis, but it was time to move on and start a new era for everyone involved. Weis will land a job pretty quickly if he wants to right now, probably in the NFL running an offense (maybe KC).

                Comment

                • #9
                  Re: Charlie Weis Fired

                  Can someone who has ESPN insider post the article 'Rumors: ND's five most likely options now' for me? Thanks.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Re: Charlie Weis Fired

                    I'm ready for them to hire someone because between this and Tiger Woods, I'm kind of annoyed.

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      Re: Charlie Weis Fired

                      Just so long as he doesn't end up with New England again.
                      Ever notice how friendly folks are at a shootin' range??.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Re: Charlie Weis Fired

                        All the talk I've been reading is that Brian Kelly is the guy, he's got a pretty impressive resume...don't know much about his recruiting ability though. If I were them though I'd go with Harbaugh - kids really seem to respond to him and he's used to recruiting at a school with higher admissions requirements.

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          Re: Charlie Weis Fired

                          I never wanted Weis to begin with, and cringed at that ridiculous contract he got. Nothing like getting paid for 5 years for doing absolutely nothing.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Re: Charlie Weis Fired

                            Originally posted by Shade View Post
                            I never wanted Weis to begin with, and cringed at that ridiculous contract he got. Nothing like getting paid for 5 years for doing absolutely nothing.
                            Steady paycheck, insurance...heck. Sign me up.

                            Comment

                            Previous template Next
                            Working...
                            X